Roy Spencer Oral Testimony for 19 March 2007

[GaryC 7]

I find it interesting that when faced with the obvious truth that the GW crowd has been stacking the deck you still have your head in the sand. You WANT to believe this nonsense and when given any proof otherwise you just sweep it under the rug. I have just shown you that through intimidation and selective funding the left has stacked the deck to get their "consensus". When will you admit that this man made GW is all a bunch of BS?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well its not as though climate research programmes are restricted solely to the United States...

There isn't any "obvious truth" where this issue is concerned - it was hijacked long ago by political arguments from every side of the fence. As for this guys claims - I'm sure he's right, but nowhere is he claiming that there is no need to study the human impact on our climate.

Unfortunately the fact that none of us are climatologists, would seem to limit what meaningful discussion we can have about the actual science - hence the continued proliferation of political arguments.

As for the 4% of C02 emmissions, who knows how susceptible the climate is to things like that - considering that a fraction of a degree temperature variation can apparently raise sea levels and cause significant changes to weather patterns.

[GaryC 7]

Well its not as though climate research programmes are restricted solely to the United States...

There isn't any "obvious truth" where this issue is concerned - it was hijacked long ago by political arguments from every side of the fence. As for this guys claims - I'm sure he's right, but nowhere is he claiming that there is no need to study the human impact on our climate.

Unfortunately the fact that none of us are climatologists, would seem to limit what meaningful discussion we can have about the actual science - hence the continued proliferation of political arguments.

As for the 4% of C02 emmissions, who knows how susceptible the climate is to things like that - considering that a fraction of a degree temperature variation can apparently raise sea levels and cause significant changes to weather patterns.

I am reasonably sure that other countries are doing the same thing when it comes to funding as the US is doing. GW has become the rallying cry for the left. I have zero faith in any government sponsored research regardless of what country is funding it. The whole thing stinks politically. When you mix politics and science all you end up with is politics.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But someone has to fund the science - and that funding always comes from government or private investors.

As this guy pointed out - there is a difference between working for a government/privately funded company and working for a university using a government grant.

[GaryC 7]

But someone has to fund the science - and that funding always comes from government or private investors.

As this guy pointed out - there is a difference between working for a government/privately funded company and working for a university using a government grant.

And that is the whole point. As long as there is a bias from the funding there will be a bias in the results! So as long as the status quo remains the same I will not trust anything that comes out of it. And without an unbiased scientific result then I will never agree with the drastic changes in the way we do things.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

But someone has to fund the science - and that funding always comes from government or private investors.

As this guy pointed out - there is a difference between working for a government/privately funded company and working for a university using a government grant.

And that is the whole point. As long as there is a bias from the funding there will be a bias in the results! So as long as the status quo remains the same I will not trust anything that comes out of it. And without an unbiased scientific result then I will never agree with the drastic changes in the way we do things.

agreed - when the funding has an interest behind it, it's in the best interest of one's wallet to have findings that agree with those interests

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find it interesting that when faced with the obvious truth that the GW crowd has been stacking the deck you still have your head in the sand. You WANT to believe this nonsense and when given any proof otherwise you just sweep it under the rug. I have just shown you that through intimidation and selective funding the left has stacked the deck to get their "consensus". When will you admit that this man made GW is all a bunch of BS?

Gary, don't take Dr. Spencer and turn him into scientist who is in your corner spewing out nonsense that Global Warming is junk science - he's never said that - you're being dishonest at best. Again, you seem confused about Global Warming. The theory itself is not in question, but the issue over how much of an impact human activity has had with Global Warming (Dr. Spencer). Because scientists can't say with absolute certainty the impact, you've dismissed it as junk science.

What do you think about the theory of evolution? I'm curious.

[GaryC 7]

I find it interesting that when faced with the obvious truth that the GW crowd has been stacking the deck you still have your head in the sand. You WANT to believe this nonsense and when given any proof otherwise you just sweep it under the rug. I have just shown you that through intimidation and selective funding the left has stacked the deck to get their "consensus". When will you admit that this man made GW is all a bunch of BS?

Gary, don't take Dr. Spencer and turn him into scientist who is in your corner spewing out nonsense that Global Warming is junk science - he's never said that - you're being dishonest at best. Again, you seem confused about Global Warming. The theory itself is not in question, but the issue over how much of an impact human activity has had with Global Warming (Dr. Spencer). Because scientists can't say with absolute certainty the impact, you've dismissed it as junk science.

What do you think about the theory of evolution? I'm curious.

Man made global warming is junk science. There is nothing that is proven about it. And Mr Spencer has just shown that the funding behind the science is biased and that makes the results biased. You like to point to the studies funded by the oil companies as an example. Since they are funded by someone who has an interest in the outcome you dismiss the results. So why is this different? It has just been shown that any study financed by the government is tilted yet you still want to believe in it like the Gospel. It's you that is being dishonest not me. If you discount studies by the oil companies because they have an interest in the outcome then you must also dismiss the studies funded by the government. So what will it be? Honest or dishonest? Or will you still hold on to your double standard?

ETA I believe in evolution because the facts back it up BTW.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And that is the whole point. As long as there is a bias from the funding there will be a bias in the results! So as long as the status quo remains the same I will not trust anything that comes out of it. And without an unbiased scientific result then I will never agree with the drastic changes in the way we do things.

Well all scientific research is funded that way – the issue as pointed out (by that scientist) is that university research programmes are generally less susceptible to that kind of direct influence than people working for private companies. You have to look at each programme on its own merits - to say that government and corporate funded studies should be thrown out just because you perceive an automatic bias because X or Y has donated money is a bit of a simplification.

It all depends on whether the money is given freely or with strings attached. That is not to imply of course that the vast majority of scientists operate bereft of any ethical constraints when they accept funding.

For clarification, as with the other article from the other day, nowhere in the OP article does the guy dismiss GW - his comments (again as with the other article) focus on the presentation rather than the content of the science.

Edited March 22, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

And that is the whole point. As long as there is a bias from the funding there will be a bias in the results! So as long as the status quo remains the same I will not trust anything that comes out of it. And without an unbiased scientific result then I will never agree with the drastic changes in the way we do things.

Well all scientific research is funded that way – the issue as pointed out (by that scientist) is that university research programmes are generally less susceptible to that kind of direct influence than people working for private companies. You have to look at each programme on its own merits - to say that government and corporate funded studies should be thrown out just because you perceive an automatic bias because X or Y has donated money is a bit of a simplification.

It all depends on whether the money is given freely or with strings attached. That is not to imply of course that the vast majority of scientists operate bereft of any ethical constraints when they accept funding.

For clarification, as with the other article from the other day, nowhere in the OP article does the guy dismiss GW - his comments (again as with the other article) focus on the presentation rather than the content of the science.

I guess I need to point it out again.

So, while you might think that the political influence on our climate research program started with the Bush Administration, that simply isn't true. It has ALWAYS existed. You just never heard about it because NASA's climate science program was aligned with Vice President Gore's desire to get rid of fossil fuels.

The bias started when the U.S. climate research program was first initiated. The emphasis on studying the PROBLEM of global warming, of course, presumes that a problem exists. As a result, the funding has ALWAYS favored the finding of evidence for climate CATASTROPHE rather than for climate STABILITY.

Money given by the government has strings attached to it. They expect the results to prop up the political agenda. This makes anything they come up with worthless. Man made GW is a hoax. It occurs naturally and there has never been an unbiased study that proves anything else. As with anything else if you want the truth just follow the money.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But he’s not saying that it's junk science – he’s saying that presentation of the science is distortive and exaggerated for political gain, not that the entire field of climate study related to GW is a crock… He even says that we need to have these research programmes to understand climate change and mankinds relation to it.

Money given by the government has strings attached to it

Well that's a simplification again - all scientific research (in every field) not just climatology is funded either by the government or by private industry. You can hardly make blanket statements about the 'bias' inherent in scientific research programmes just because X/Y is supplying money. The issue is to what extent that support prevents scientists from doing their work - if for example the research team is muzzled and prevented from revealing their findings by contractual issues. That obviously is going to vary from programme to programme...

[Uzume 0]

Interesting discussion, I agree that the global warming issue is a reality but it's the level of human activity that now needs to be determined.

This can also be looked at sociologically. I like to think that whether there's a case for or against GW and human activity- anything which encourages people to stop thinking about themselves with no regard for others and encourages a global sense of responsibility for the planet is, quite frankly, a good thing.

RE: the Mars GW issue and no people on Mars, we are part of a universe, not just an isolated planet. Could what we do on earth affect other planets? This is not a rhetorical question :-)

[GaryC 7]

RE: the Mars GW issue and no people on Mars, we are part of a universe, not just an isolated planet. Could what we do on earth affect other planets? This is not a rhetorical question :-)

AlGore's jet is causing Martian GW.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

RE: the Mars GW issue and no people on Mars, we are part of a universe, not just an isolated planet. Could what we do on earth affect other planets? This is not a rhetorical question :-)

Theoretically if there were life on mars at one time or another - they could have caused the martian global warming. But that's something out of the pages of a science fiction novel...

Edited March 25, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This can also be looked at sociologically. I like to think that whether there's a case for or against GW and human activity- anything which encourages people to stop thinking about themselves with no regard for others and encourages a global sense of responsibility for the planet is, quite frankly, a good thing.

Well said!

We only need to look at issues such as the mercury levels in fish or lead particles in the air to realize the negative impact human activity can have on our quality of life. We should adopt an overall attitude of minimizing that impact whenever possible and reasonable.